Can a person be a feminist and not subscribe to patriarchy theory?

[derekmotor]

Is the Femitheist a feminist? Based on this, the answer is no. Feminism is founded on the belief that males and females should be treated equally. The Femitheist has argued in favor of removing the gonads of one gender but not the other, therefore she advocates highly unequal treatment. The fact her suggested course of action would benefit certain women in certain situations is irrelevant. It's discrimination based on gender, therefore it is incompatible with the effort to erase gender based discrimination.

the femitheist herself says she's not a feminist. it looks like you guys are arguing over her satirical work. you could just check her pages to find all this out.

her twitter says 'non-feminist' in the bio, her yt page has said 'i am not a feminist' on it for like 2 years. and she has a video up called 'i am not a feminist'.

it also says it on her site pages.

http://www.femitheist.net/p/cp-faq.html

http://www.femitheist.net/p/important-disclaimer-read.html

& her serious content is egalitarian in nature...things like this:

www.femitheist.net/2014/07/male-circumcision-mgm-a-matter-of-bodily-autonomy.html (july 2014)
http://www.femitheist.net/2015/02/six-nice-things-about-the-mrm.html
www.femitheist.net/2014/12/on-anti-gm-circumcision-as-a-cultural-prejudice.html
http://www.femitheist.net/2014/08/yes-means-yes-law-bill-california.html

pretty easy stuff to find really.

 

[repoman]

Huh, so a modern "A Modest Proposal"?

Maybe it should be called Swift's Law not Poe's Law.

Anyway, she has not much relation to why I started this thread.

 

[derekmotor]

Huh, so a modern "A Modest Proposal"?

Maybe it should be called Swift's Law not Poe's Law.

Anyway, she has not much relation to why I started this thread.

i've only seen her content since 2013. but i know she's said since before i followed her the castration day thing wasn't serious. & her other 90-10 thing as well.

according to her the original called it a modest proposal as a reference to jonathan swift. but i've only seen old forum threads quoting it that mention that.

most of her content's equality minded. she's a pretty nice person. i definitely wouldn't use her as a 'bad individual' example. feminist or not.

and @ the topic of the thread...i don't think patriarchy theory is a requirement to be feminist. some feminists use kyriarchy instead.

check out...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/10/kyriarchy-and-patriarchy

(believe it or not i learned of that term from TF...never seen her use it anywhere though)

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You guys do know that within Kyriarchy, Patriarchy is included, not absolved. The same is true of racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, etc.

Intersectionality only works if it has things that intersect.

 

[bigfield]

You guys do know that within Kyriarchy, Patriarchy is included, not absolved. The same is true of racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, etc.

Intersectionality only works if it has things that intersect.

And blacks can't be racist and all that bullshit. Don't care about your definitions.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You guys do know that within Kyriarchy, Patriarchy is included, not absolved. The same is true of racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, etc.

Intersectionality only works if it has things that intersect.

And blacks can't be racist and all that bullshit. Don't care about your definitions.

Not my definitions and it is obvious you don't care.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Thank you Arctish.

You forgot your follow up gotcha questions.

I don't have any. That was my "gotcha" question.

 

[RavenSky]

My niece posted an article on FaceBook today:

Jessica Valenti is one of the most successful and visible feminists of her generation. As a columnist for the Guardian, her face regularly appears on the site’s front page. She has written five books, one of which was adapted into a documentary, since founding the blog Feministing.com. She gives speeches all over the country. And she tells me that, because of the nonstop harassment that feminist writers face online, if she could start over, she might prefer to be completely anonymous. “I don’t know that I would do it under my real name,” she says she tells young women who are interested in writing about feminism. It’s “not just the physical safety concerns but the emotional ramifications” of constant, round-the-clock abuse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I read the article, nothing outrageous in it... predictably the comments section is filled with a bunch of frothy vitriol that rather proves the point of the article.

 

[Unbeatable]

My niece posted an article on FaceBook today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I read the article, nothing outrageous in it... predictably the comments section is filled with a bunch of frothy vitriol that rather proves the point of the article.

The way I see it, the point of the article is that such frothy vitriol actually works. Anti-feminist backlashers should feel vindicated by this article. It shows that their crude bullying tactics pay off, if they keep at it long enough; that it really is possible to make a difference just by being an anonymous asshole on the internet.